This is being handled by Legal.

A review of this file and Planning's file revealed the following: (1) in November of 2007 a Plan Review was initiated, at the owner's request, to swap an upper level bedroom for a basement bedroom; (2) both HAND's Plan Review and Planning's CZC made it clear that while the swapping of bedrooms was permitted, no additional bedrooms could be created, i.e. they were limited to three bedrooms per unit; (3) in 2009 HAND conducted an inspection and noted that each unit now contained four bedrooms; (4) in 2009 HAND issued a permit for the property indicating each unit could have four bedrooms; and (5) the ownership in 2007 and in 2009 was one in the same. After conferring with Planning staff and Legal we have determined that the fourth bedroom was added illegally, that the occupancy permit issued in 2009 was issued in error and that the illegal fourth bedrooms needed to be removed and the occupancy permit reissued with only 3 bedrooms per unit being permitted. While at first glance, this issue may seem similiar to that which exists in the VV case, staff has determined the following facts differentiate this case from the VV case: (1) the VV case is a case that involves approximately 30 years of numerous mistakes on the part of the City and this case is only one mistake in a very short amount of time; (2) the VV case is a case that involved changing ownership over the course of the City's mistake and in this case the ownership remained the same; and (3) it is arguable in the VV case that individual owners were not made aware that they could not add additional bedrooms whierein this case is crystal clear that the owner was specifically told by both HAND and Planning that an additional fourth bedroom would not be permitted. Planning will issue a NOV. A corrected permit will be issued -- but it will be delayed in issuing until Planning has resolved its legal actions in the unlikely event the owner is given a variance by the BZA.